Comments on: Social workers in private practice: Why the AASW should be doing more for them

By: Amanda Robins

Amanda Robins — Mon, 10 Jun 2019 03:31:50 +0000

Jenny Delahunty you are one of the lucky ones. I see many many social workers who are employed in organisations so toxic I wonder that anyone could survive in them.
Social workers in NGOs are often the first to be blamed and the last to get a pay rise!

By: Jenny Delahunty

Jenny Delahunty — Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:44:45 +0000

All of the above = why I decided to step out of private practice back into a NFP organisation.

Much happier = Supportive Colleagues, Sal Packaging, Lots of PD, Great Manager, Car, Laptop, No Rent, No Rates, Admin Support, HR Support, Client Management IT etc.

By: vittorio1

vittorio1 — Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:58:42 +0000

My apologies that I came across as patronising. I value and appreciate your engagement.
I happily own up to being a socialist. I am also a member of the NSW Greens, and Dying with Dignity.
If you don’t vote for me, you are unlikely to vote for the incumbents either- so why not stand yourself?

By: Annoyed & Sceptical

Annoyed & Sceptical — Thu, 15 Jun 2017 03:31:28 +0000

In case you hadn’t noticed, I am engaged insofar as having a dialogue with you fits the bill. I could say don’t be patronising!
You have a point about being remembered by what we do. Let me suggest to you that, at a rough guess you have some sort of socialist politics, although you are loathe to admit this because it won’t get you elected. As a politician then you have lurched down the liberal pathway with a mishmash of ideas that are inoffensive but largely ungrounded – perhaps along the lines of land rights for gay whales! I suspect like many social workers, you are in danger of compromising yourself out of existence
I read the thing you wrote about ethics and you write very well. The problem is that pragmatic politics is devoid of ethics and full of justification. I think you are headed down that track.
What is the problem with telling the truth? If you need to justify it in a political sense there is a politician in the UK who had a go on a socialist platform and almost pulled it off.
In fact as a politician you will be remembered for what you say and what you do and the congruence of these things.
Would I vote for you on the that premise – probably not. Will you be able to influence others to vote for you – probably yes. Will you win, which is the object you seek at considerable cost – well we will have to wait and see.

By: vittorio1

vittorio1 — Wed, 14 Jun 2017 11:48:41 +0000

Get involved. Get engaged. Stand for office. Put a name to your views and act on them. We will be remembered in the history of our profession for what we did, not what we said.

By: Annoyed & Sceptical

Annoyed & Sceptical — Wed, 14 Jun 2017 07:54:16 +0000

Sorry for pushing you into defence, I am not really intending to give you grief. I am not questioning your intentions. I just don’t agree with you and am truly concerned about the state of and the future for the profession.
I am not in the position to answer the question you have posed about our collective interests. As you point out, it is difficult to get the necessary information. I will leave that to politicians (reluctant or otherwise).
There are divisions within our profession – like it or not. Being as I am not a politician I am not seeking to exploit these, but I don’t like the idea of papering them over either. I think we have a way to go before we could truthfully talk of collective interests.
What I object to here is more than a whiff of pragmatic politics – the sort of thing that has in my humble view got the AASW and the profession to the point where it has all but compromised itself out of existence. That is why the ethical base is so important, but it takes courage to run with this rather than compromise. No doubt one couldn’t win an election on this premise, hence my scepticism about politics.
As far as progressive policies are concerned, who was it that went along with the current idea of the obviously underpaid idea of private practice. As you have pointed out, this has created a social work underclass. Was that seen as a progressive policy at the time? I dare say that the removal of indigenous children from their families was another progressive policy at that time in history, no doubt based on evidence of some sort.
I am naturally wary of politicians and I am not alone in this belief. I also think there are very obvious flaws in what you are saying. Think about it if you will

By: vittorio1

vittorio1 — Wed, 14 Jun 2017 04:19:00 +0000

I still don’t understand why you are giving me grief when I am advocating more progressive policies? Are you suggesting elections and policy debate are pointless? What activity do you think is in our collective interest?
I am a very reluctant politician, but I won’t give up trying to persuade members that more progressive policies are in our collective interests. And I make no apology for advocating for private practitioners who have not had a pay rise for many years. The growth in private practice is due in large part to the way in which successive governments have decided to fund counselling. We find work where we can get it because we have bills to pay and need to put food on the table.
The AASW keeps the components of our membership data a secret. I disagree with that. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
But I find your language divisive, insofar as it pits one membership group against another. We share a code of ethics and a commitment to social justice. I do not believe in the 51% ruling over the 49%. For me collectivity means- from each according to their abilities and to each according to their needs.

By: Annoyed & Sceptical

Annoyed & Sceptical — Wed, 14 Jun 2017 03:27:32 +0000

My issue with policy is probably as much based on personal experience as anything else. In my experience policy is often the domain of politicians and managers and often used to drive politically conservative or managerialist agendas. I don’t know if engaging in such activity is in our collective interests. It is more than likely a waste of time and energy. At worst policy can be used in a political process that is detrimental to us. In my view, too many social workers have been keen to get on board with these agendas. This in part explains why we have accepted quite a low fee structure or where Social Workers have engaged in policy work that has contributed to the demise of the profession in the public sector.
I would still like to know what percentage of the profession is involved in the AASW and where the majority of Social Workers work these days.
Whilst I agree with you about the code of ethics, I don’t see that the AASW has produced that much of relevance to the profession or it’s advancement as a whole (outside of representing sectional interests). I know that there is a growth in members who are private practitioners. The reason for this is obvious as is your interest in them as a politician. I do not think the organisation represents the interests of the vast majority. Maybe this should be a priority. Otherwise we as a profession are in danger of lurching into the area of pragmatic politics, void of the ethical considerations you mention.

By: vittorio1

vittorio1 — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 09:32:09 +0000

Seems we agree that the AASW should be transparent about how expenditure is allocated- particularly to members who face additional fees.You will find if you read back through my material that I have long advocated for the AASW to work closely with trade unions where there is a shared membership.
But I don’t understand your gripe about policy? What’s wrong about wanting to influence policy?
We are now in a culture that has successfully discouraged a lot of collective action. Trade union membership and the membership of voluntary professional associations has drastically declined. But I believe that we must keep faith with the the professional project. Our independent code of ethics is our best defence against inequity, managerialism and the other blights of unfettered free markets.

By: Annoyed & Sceptical

Annoyed & Sceptical — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 03:35:04 +0000

An interesting dialogue. I am wondering what percentage of Social Workers belong to the AASW and who is the major employer of Social Workers these days? I agree with my fellow sceptic about the cost of being a member, especially if you throw I the extra cost of Mental Health Accreditation. There is also the cost of the extra professional development needed to maintain the accreditation. There is no way that this is value for money, especially when there is a great difference between what Social Worker and say Clinical Psychologists (although no doubt Clinical Psychologists would disagree) are paid for pretty much the same job.
I suspect that the greater number of Social Workers are in fact public servants and probably not members of the Association. I further suspect that is because the association does not represent their interests.
If my workplace is anything to go by, Social Work is in real trouble, partly due to an irrelevant and toothless association. The issues are probably more industrial than anything else (wages and conditions). So please tell me again why we should be interested in such an association when it seems to be dominated by academics and management types who have little interest in the plight of workers at the coal face or indeed their clients. I also find the interest in policy fascinating. It would seem to me that politicians and managers like to have a policy on just about everything. This is often trotted out when there is a failing in the system or perhaps to blame some hapless worker for a systemic failure. Why then when the stocks of the profession are so low are we interested in policy? Please get real and get relevant.